Christmas morning is over and your blogger is done opening the presents – errrrr, campaign finance reports. Now we get to share them with you! And we will start by breaking down the Montgomery County Executive race.

Before we start playing with the toys, let’s clear away the wrapping and discuss a few data issues. Our numbers are different from what you will read in other outlets. That’s because Seventh State readers are special and we are going to give you only the best! First, we calculate total raised and total spent across the entire cycle and not just over the course of one report period. Many candidates, particularly in other races we will discuss, have been campaigning for more than a year and we want to capture that. Second, we separate self-funding from funds raised from others. Self-funding includes money from spouses. Total raised does not include in-kind contributions. Third, for self-financed candidates, we include public matching fund distributions that have been requested but not deposited in raised money and in cash on hand (which we call adjusted cash balance). That gives you a better idea of the true financial position of publicly financed campaigns.

And now, we reveal the numbers you all have been craving: the first round of fundraising reports for the seven people running for County Executive.

This is exactly the kind of race Council Member Marc Elrich wants. He is up against five other candidates, only one of whom has run countywide before, who are nothing like him and cannot steal votes from his progressive and anti-development base. Better yet, because of public financing, he has the resources to be financially competitive. (The thought of Elrich with money is almost as strange as the sight of Elrich wearing a suit and tie.) Elrich has been building a grass roots base for thirty years and he will be able to combine it with substantial labor, progressive and environmental support. This election is starting to turn into Elrich and a competition to become the non-Elrich alternative.

Council Member Roger Berliner has to feel good about his report. He leads the field in total raised for the cycle and cash on hand, and also has the lowest burn rate. Berliner can now start making the case to those who are not inclined to support Elrich that he is the most viable alternative to Elrich. Doing that is essential for his path to victory. (Disclosure: your author is a publicly-listed supporter of Berliner and has done work for him in the past.)

Businessman David Blair is sometimes compared to fellow businessman David Trone, but he is not using a Trone-like strategy. When Trone entered the CD8 race last year, he staffed up rapidly and began spending millions on television within weeks. Accordingly, some observers expected Blair to write himself a million dollar check, putting opponents on notice and perhaps intimidating one or two of them to withdraw. But while Trone plays to win, Blair looks like he’s playing around. He gave himself just enough money ($300,000) to equal the formerly penniless Elrich in cash on hand and trail Berliner. As for private sector fundraising, Berliner has raked in almost three times as much as Blair. Blair needs to sharpen his message, learn more about the county and show a hunger to win.

Council Member George Leventhal is plenty hungry. He might be the hardest-working candidate in the race and he clearly believes he’s the best person for the job. But Leventhal is killing his campaign with his sky-high burn rate (46%), which is more than double the burn rates of Elrich (19%) and Berliner (18%). Like Berliner, Leventhal needs to show to non-Elrich folks that he is the most viable alternative to Elrich. To do that, he needs to tighten up his spending and get some big endorsements – sooner rather than later.

Bill Frick, you know we love you. We admire your heroism on the liquor monopoly and we appreciate all the great fodder you have given us over the years. But you showed a cash balance of $150,753 – less than half what Berliner, Elrich and Blair reported. Why are you doing this, Bill? We want many more years of you in public office, so please take our advice: stay in the House and run to succeed Brian Frosh as Attorney General when the time comes. We will help you do it! We will even write dozens of blog posts just like this one.

Former Planning Department staffer and Rockville Mayor Rose Krasnow is an appealing, substantive and competent candidate with fans in both the business and smart growth communities. The fact that she is the only female candidate running against five men in a Democratic primary electorate that is almost 60% female is a big plus. Her numbers are not in yet, but she told Bethesda Magazine that she had raised $39,800 from small contributions in the public financing system. If that’s true, it means she is on pace to qualify for public matching funds much faster than either Elrich or Leventhal did. Still, we don’t understand why she entered public financing. It takes a long time to raise money that way and it prevents her from tapping into what could be substantial business support. Even if she qualifies for matching funds, she could very well trail all the other Democrats in fundraising except maybe Frick.

Republican Robin Ficker appears roughly halfway to qualifying for public matching funds. That means the county’s most infamous anti-tax activist could wind up campaigning on the public dole. And all of you MoCo residents will be paying for that!

Right about now, the happiest man in Montgomery County lives in Boyds. He is 74, a huge sports fanatic, a long time attorney, a former state Delegate, a perpetual candidate and a tireless activist. He loves the County Council because some of its members give him endless material for use in his never-ending demagogic campaign to weaken and ultimately paralyze county government.

Ficker has been running for office and placing charter amendments on the ballot, mostly intended to limit taxes, since the 1970s. The huge majority of his amendments have failed, often because the political establishment labeled them “Ficker amendments” to exploit the national infamy of his heckling at Washington Bullets games. One exception was the razor-tight passage of his 2008 charter amendment mandating that all nine Council Members vote in support of exceeding the charter limit on property taxes. But Ficker has never had more ammo than in the last four years and he has used it to push his anti-government agenda. Consider what has happened.

Your author does not enjoy writing this column because we find merit in this particular tax. Sugary drinks and soda are public health menaces, especially to children. The intended use of the money for early childhood programs is a good idea. And the current tight budget does not give any quick or easy options for funding undeniable, but expensive, priorities like early childhood education. But the counter-argument from Ficker, who calls Council Members “tax increase specialists,” is obvious. “They’re not listening to you,” Ficker will tell the voters. “You told them no more tax hikes and they’re going to do it anyway.” Even Leventhal, who has voted for numerous tax hikes and has done as much to promote public health as any Council Member ever, has come out against the new tax.

The danger here is not that Ficker will be elected. Voters made that mistake once all the way back in 1978 and have never come close to repeating it since. The real problem is the next charter amendment that Ficker will inevitably introduce after his latest election campaign fails. Whatever else Ficker is, he is an astute student of Maryland county tax policies. He is fully aware of the taxation and spending limits in the Prince George’s County charter, such as the requirements that the property tax rate may not exceed 96 cents per $100 of assessed value and that bond issues, new taxes, other tax increases and some fee increases be approved by voters. He is also aware of provisions in the state constitution and several county charters that forbid legislative bodies from adding spending to executive budgets. Indeed, some of his past charter amendments have been variants of such policies.

It’s one thing to raise taxes during terrible economic downturns as the county did in 2010. That simply had to be done. It’s a very different thing to discuss new discretionary tax hikes in times when voters are not convinced that they are absolutely needed. If the council would like to have more money available for worthy programs, it should focus on growing the economy, stop adding ongoing miscellaneous spending financed by one-shot revenue sources, redirect cable fund money to purposes that actually benefit the public and restrain some parts of the budget to finance expansions of others. Doing those things will free up tens of millions of dollars, and maybe more, over time. But constant talk, and occasional passage, of discretionary tax hikes will only help Ficker place a Prince George’s-style anti-tax doomsday charter amendment on the ballot. Should such a thing pass, no soda tax will save us.

Hence a warning. If you give Robin Ficker enough ammo, even he will eventually hit the target.

Robin Ficker has been reprimanded yet again by the Maryland Court of Appeals for a legal ethics violation. Specifically, he failed to show up for court and left his client unrepresented, and also employed a disbarred lawyer without the appropriate required notice.

Ficker blamed a conflict and communication problems with the judge’s office for why the judge didn’t know that he wouldn’t appear. Did the client know that Ficker was leaving in the lurch? On the second violation, Ficker plead ignorance of the law as his excuse:

“I did not know about that rule. There was not a single Maryland case which had ever mentioned that rule or any ruling by the Maryland Court of Appeals,” Ficker said, adding that he stays up to date on developments in the state’s highest court.

If disbarment is not warranted in this case for these types of issues, with a respondent with this history, it will never be warranted. If it is never going to be warranted in these types of cases, we should modify the rules to say so. I would disbar.

Taking into account his history, Ficker was lucky to once again get away with just a reprimand.

This will not affect his chances of being elected Montgomery County Executive, as those remain nil.

Ficker’s campaign website explicitly refers to the county’s new public financing system, under which the county matches campaign contributions made by individual residents (but not PACs, corporate entities or non-residents). The system is opt-in; candidates can use the traditional financing system if they wish. Ficker created a public financing account to run for Executive on February 8. But that doesn’t mean he will necessarily get public funds.

Ficker’s campaign website home page.

The county’s system does not distribute taxpayer money to everyone who participates. Instead, it sets up a number of thresholds candidates must reach before they are eligible for public matching funds. Under the law, a candidate for Executive must receive at least 500 contributions of $150 or less from county residents totaling at least $40,000 before he or she is eligible for public funds. The candidate cannot accept money from PACs or businesses and cannot take individual contributions of higher amounts. Once eligible, the candidate can collect up to $600 in taxpayer funds for each $150 contributed by an individual. Lesser matching amounts apply to smaller contributions on a sliding scale. Lower thresholds and different match levels apply to those running for County Council at-large and district seats.

Could Ficker get public money? Ficker has used two campaign accounts over the last decade, the Robin Ficker for Homeowners Committee (which he used in two runs for County Council) and the Fickers for 15 Slate (which he used to run for the General Assembly along with his son in 2014). The two accounts together raised $262,762. Of that amount, Ficker self-financed $259,108, or 99% of his take. A total of 33 individuals other than Ficker gave to the two accounts. So Ficker has a long ways to go to get public money. However, he does plan to use his term limits petition information to raise contributions. Ficker gathered 17,649 signatures. If just three percent of those folks contribute $150 or less to his campaign, Ficker will qualify for public matching funds.

And so here is the cost of public campaign financing. If taxpayers are to fund the campaigns of candidates they might support, they may also have to fund the campaigns of those they do not. Even the clown prince of political hecklers. Even Robin Ficker.

Bethesda Beat caught local gadfly and perennial Republican candidate Robin Ficker in a shocking admission the other day:

[In 2009], Ficker lost to council member Nancy Navarro, 7,364 to 4,263, in a special election for the council’s District 4 seat. Ficker said Friday he used his parents’ Silver Spring address to run in that race.

However, the Montgomery County Charter says that you’re supposed to reside in the Council District in which you run:

Each of the five other members of the Council shall, at the time of Nomination and election and throughout the member’s term of office, reside in a different Council district, and shall be nominated and elected by the qualified voters of that district. Any change in the boundaries of a Council district after a member is elected shall not render the member ineligible to complete the term for which the member was elected.

You’re supposed to use your own address, not that of your parents, when you run for office, so did Ficker violate the law? Notice that Ficker did not say that he moved to his parents’ house to establish residency but that “he used his parents’ address.”

How did Ficker establish residency in Council District 4? Was his parents’ home his domicile? Did he live with his parents or with his wife in their home? Did Ficker file taxes at his own home or that of his parents? Did he obtain a new driver’s license with his parents’ address? Did he switch his voter registration, and if so, was that also done legally?

Put bluntly, did Robin Ficker establish legal residency in Council District 4? In light of the obvious evidence and Ficker’s public admission, does the State’s Attorney intend to investigate violations of either tax or election law?

A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. . . .

A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office. . . .

Although Ficker’s law license was reinstated after a year in the last case, the dissent in the opinion stated:

If disbarment is not warranted in this case for these types of issues, with a respondent with this history, it will never be warranted. If it is never going to be warranted in these types of cases, we should modify the rules to say so. I would disbar.

In a thundering rebuke to Montgomery County’s governing establishment, voters have passed term limits by a 38 point margin with early votes and election day votes counted. Folks, let’s call this what it is.

A Revolt.

This year will see one of the largest electorates in Montgomery County history. While the absolute number of voters may be declining in our mid-term elections, it has been steadily rising in presidential general elections. County residents voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump (by 54 points as of this writing). But they also voted for term limits despite the fact that most county voters are Democrats and all county elected officials are Democrats. This year was reminiscent of the 2008 general election, during which MoCo voted for Barack Obama by 45 points but also approved Robin Ficker’s charter amendment restricting property tax hikes by just 5,060 votes. This demonstrates the capacity of county voters to keep national issues and local issues separate when they so desire. The big difference between 2008 and now is that the margin of term limits’ passage was so titanic that it’s possible that half of all Democrats voted for it.

Former County Council Member Steve Silverman astutely characterized term limits supporters as “a convergence of strange bed-fellows.” County employees upset about reduced raises, business people unhappy about what they see as an unfriendly business climate, residents opposed to new master plans with more density, Republicans and unaffiliated voters angry about being marginalized, opponents of the county’s liquor monopoly, people upset about the recent Giant Tax Hike and nanny state laws, and those who genuinely regard term limits as facilitating good government came together as they never have before. As David Lublin wrote, these groups may have had incompatible visions of what county government should be, but all of them believed the way to get there was to get rid of the incumbents.

Term limits opponents made two primary arguments. First, they described term limits as “an attack on progressive government.” This had the effect of making the term limits question a referendum on current county elected officials, a perspective actually shared by many supporters.

And second, they tried to make term limits toxic by emphasizing their support by figures like Donald Trump, Robin Ficker and Help Save Maryland.

That strategy didn’t work for two reasons: the opponents were vastly under-funded as they were going uphill and the message itself was not calibrated for a general electorate that is less liberal thanDemocraticprimary voters. Social media proved to be the weapon of choice for both sides, and in terms of Facebook likes, supporters outgunned opponents by a ratio of 13-1. Opponents were counting on the Democratic sample ballot and the Apple Ballot, both opposing term limits, to win. But whereas the sample ballot is often mailed to all county Democrats, this time around it was mailed only to those who had newly registered. And the teachers union did not supplement its Apple Ballot poll coverage with multiple mass mailings as they do in mid-term years. Accordingly, the impact of both ballots was blunted. Opposition organizer Tom Moore made a valiant effort, but this was an unwinnable campaign from the start.

We don’t want more property taxes. We don’t want more government fees. We don’t want a labor union running the police department. And even though most of us are Democrats, we are telling the Democrats who run the county government that twelve years in office is long enough.

This is pretty much the opposite of the long-standing posture of the county’s political establishment. And it’s not just coming from flakes, fanatics and fringe types like Robin Ficker and Help Save Maryland – it’s coming from a majority of county voters. If there was ever a moment for the governing class to do some soul searching, this is it.

Opponents of term limits may be right about one thing – they may change the names of elected officials, but not the type of them. Democrats, often very liberal ones, will continue to be elected because of our closed primary system. But the combined message of the last four ballot questions imposes a hard choice on the elected officials of today and tomorrow. They can try to balance the interests of various constituencies across the political spectrum at the possible cost of losing the progressive support that influences Democratic primaries. Or they can stay the course and watch more moderate general election voters pass even more restrictive ballot questions, including perhaps the ultimate bane of progressivism – a hard tax cap.

With the challenge to Robin Ficker’s petition signatures having failed in court, the opposition to term limits has hit a new low. Opponents have less than three weeks left and over 400,000 prospective general election voters to reach. Tick tock says the clock.

How do you win on term limits? Here’s a theory: voters will vote in accordance with their perceived self-interest. Whoever wishes to sway them must address their self-interest and take account of how they see it. Failure to do so means losing the argument.

Well, OK. But what do any of these arguments have to do with the voters’ self-interest?

And then this happened.

“Oh wait a minute. Never mind, voters. Forget about what we told you. We are going to court so you won’t be able to vote! What’s that? You will be voting after all? Oh. Well, remember what we were saying…?”

Adding to the above is that most prominent opponents of term limits have a personal self-interest in the issue. Several incumbent Council Members have spoken publicly against them. Tom Moore, the opponents’ organizer, is a former Rockville City Council Member who ran for County Council in 2014 and might do so again. Almost all of the scanty funding for the anti-term limits committee came from Council Members, their staff, their family and a non-profit receiving county money. Are there any non-politicians (aside from Charter Review Commission Chair Paul Bessel) who are willing to work to defeat term limits?

Ficker, on the other hand, does have a narrative aimed at voters. His sales pitch is that, according to him, current elected officials are “self-serving” by awarding themselves large salary increases and voting for big tax hikes filled with goodies for interest groups that help them get reelected. The costs of all this are passed on to taxpayers. Ficker proposes breaking this cycle by instituting term limits and getting new people elected with “fresh ideas.” Put aside for a moment that there are numerous problems with his theory, including that there is already substantial competition in county elections and that the 2014 public financing law could promote even more competition. Ficker is speaking directly to the pocketbook interests of voters while the other side is currently not.

Paul Bessel’s scholarly dissertation on term limits is helpful, but is anyone other than a handful of insomniac college professors going to read it? Opponents need a direct, relevant message. Something like this:

Come on, voters! Is it really in your self-interest to disenfranchise yourselves? Do you want to prevent yourselves from reelecting an official whom you believe is doing a good job? Do you benefit from a government that is run by bureaucrats and lobbyists? Do you really think a County Council jam-packed with lame ducks is going to act on your behalf? What exactly are YOU getting out of all this?

There’s nothing here about Ficker, Help Save Maryland, Trump or Brexit. It’s about the voters, stupid! Just like it’s supposed to be.

Term limits opponents need message, resources and scale – and they need those things yesterday. Because at this moment, Ficker is on pace to win, perhaps by double digits.

Brad Botwin, Director of the anti-immigration group Help Save Maryland, has sent out the following email promoting term limits.

*****

UPDATE ON THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY TERM LIMIT PETITION – CITIZENS WORKING TOGETHER CAN SUCCEED!

Recent e-mail I received on the status of the Term Limit Petition which will revitalize the MoCo County Council and County Executive if passed this November 2016 by the voters. The professional politicians are getting nervous!

Dear Concerned Voter:

Thank you for signing the non-partisan term limits petition for Montgomery County.

We did it! You and nearly 18,000 registered voters in Montgomery County signed the term limits petition (only 10,000 signatures were required). The signatures were submitted on August 8, which means you’ll be able to vote on the term limits question on the November 2018 general election ballot. When passed — and we need your vote to pass the measure — it will limit County Council members and the County Executive to serving no more than three consecutive terms, or 12 years.

One week from today, on Wednesday, August 24, you will have an opportunity to support term limits at a Montgomery County Charter Commission hearing.

Here is information about the hearing: http://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=16281

In order to testify, you must notify the commission in advance by e-mailing them at: charterreview.commission@montgomerycountymd.gov

If you can’t attend, but still want to convey your support for the term limits petition; email the commission at the same e-mail address in the previous sentence.

If you don’t want to speak out publicly on the 24th, please come to the hearing and stand with your neighbors in support of term limits for the County Council and County Executive.

If you want to know how you can help or need more information, let us know.

Thank you,

Montgomery County Citizens group in support of Term Limits sohenc@gmail.com

*****

The gmail account above belongs to Sharon Cohen, a member of the Montgomery County Republican Party’s Central Committee. This reinforces the central role played by both Help Save Maryland and the Republicans in pushing Robin Ficker’s terms limits charter amendment.

The state’s election law requires groups advocating on ballot questions to register with the State Board of Elections and file campaign finance reports. According to the state’s summary guide on campaign finance laws, “Once the petition process to place a question on the ballot is completed, a ballot issue committee must be formed before money is collected or spent to promote the success or defeat of the ballot issue.”

So far, no committee on Montgomery County term limits has registered with the state. Hopefully, any group advocating on the issue will obey the law, file reports and show their funding. Voters may find that information useful as they consider whether to support term limits.

It was the spring of 2008. Five-term County Council Member Marilyn Praisner, who had represented District 4 since 1990, had passed away and eight candidates were running for her seat. One of them was a woman. One of them was a person of color born in another country.

Her name was Nancy Navarro.

At that time, District 4 included most of US-29 north of Downtown Silver Spring to the Howard County border and the areas south of Olney, east of Rockville and north of Wheaton. It had little in the way of restaurants or shopping. There was the aging, emptying business district in Burtonsville. There was the decrepit, asphalt-covered shopping center in Glenmont. Here and there, small and mid-size retail strips clung to the sides of New Hampshire Avenue and other major roads. A tiny colony of fast food and lowbrow restaurants had just sprung up on US-29 at Tech Road. Walkable urban shopping was nowhere to be found. If residents wanted that, they would have to drive to Downtown Silver Spring to get it.

None of this was an accident. For years and years, the civic leaders and activists who dominated the district’s politics had worked hard to keep development out. Mrs. Praisner was their champion. They regarded development as a bad thing, attracting both traffic and “undesirables.” But newer residents, including people of color, wanted the restaurants, jobs and shopping that most other people around the county had. Colesville resident Nancy Navarro was one of them, and soon she became their champion.

Navarro stood out during the 2008 special election, and not just because of her gender and heritage. The other seven candidates running for Mrs. Praisner’s seat, including her husband Don, adhered to her vision of little or no growth. (Don Praisner’s campaign slogan was literally “Fulfilling the Vision.”) Navarro instead talked about the benefits of economic development, such as creating jobs for residents and giving them amenities that they had not previously had. Navarro was also supported by many in the business and real estate communities and the public employee unions. None of this sat well with the old guard, who regarded developers as evil and unions as tax-happy. Navarro quickly became a target.

Much of this is par for the course in the rocky world of political campaigns. After all, opposition to change frequently arises in politics and outrage can be selective. But with Navarro on the ballot, it mutated into something far darker: a toxic stew of racism and xenophobia. Don Praisner defeated Navarro in the 2008 Democratic primary and would serve on the council for less than a year before he passed away. When Navarro returned to run again in the 2009 special election, the forces of extremism were prepared.

Most bizarre of all was an email sent to Navarro’s campaign asking about her immigration status. The author wrote, “I am informally involved with a group of Independents and we are trying to identify a candidate that we feel comfortable endorsing. It would be great if you could put the rumors to rest and provide information as to when (what year) and where, which state, Ms. Navarro received her naturalization or citizenship. Thank you.” In fact, the author – who used a fake name – was a GOP activist who wrote for the party and had testified against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.

Given this history, it’s no surprise that Help Save Maryland’s participation in Ficker’s term limits initiative was spurred in part by a desire to knock off Navarro. The group has never made its peace with Navarro’s election and has sent out numerous emails slamming her over the years. Supporters of term limits have many motivations, but Help Save Maryland is quite clear about theirs: they want to slam the county’s gates shut to “illegal aliens.”

Will any of this make a difference in the current debate over term limits? Probably not. Few voters have heard of Help Save Maryland and understand what the group believes. Even Ficker is less infamous now that his NBA heckling days are mostly over. In any event, voters are more likely to see term limits through the prism of their own perceived self-interest rather than how they impact specific elected officials.

But make no mistake: the treatment of Nancy Navarro during the 2009 special election is a shameful blot on the county’s political history. It must not be forgotten. It must not be repeated. And hopefully, her successors will be treated with the honor and respect that all upstanding candidates deserve.

The Washington Post’s legendary editorial from 1988 says it all: Anyone But Robin Ficker. The only problem with it is that it’s nearly thirty years old. And the scourge of Montgomery County has been plenty busy since then!

Robin Ficker is well known to elected officials and veteran activists because of his forty-year rampage through the county. But for those who have not yet encountered him, or have been exposed to him only through his most recent attempt to pass term limits, here are Four Facts about the man local politicians hate the most.

He is a World-Class Heckler

If there is ever a Heckler Hall of Fame, Robin Ficker would be a charter member. He has all the tools of heckling: a booming voice, boundless energy, a rapacious hunger for attention of any kind and absolutely no fear. For many years, he was indisputably the Number One heckler in the NBA, harassing opponents of his beloved Washington Bullets from directly behind their bench. Ficker once explained the key to his heckling technique to ESPN.

It’s important to really read up on the opposing team and follow the game very closely, so that you’re conversant with the psychological weaknesses of the other team,” advises Robin Ficker, the Bethesda-based attorney who was once the NBA’s preeminent heckler.

He Runs for Everything, All the Time

Ficker has been continually running for office for more than 40 years. The list of offices is nearly endless: U.S. Senate, U.S. House, Maryland Senate and House, MoCo Executive, County Council and school board. (Does anyone know if Ficker has run for President?) He once considered running for Governor and sought out a running mate through a classified ad that said, “Prefer female who is tax-cutting Republican, ambitious, intelligent, fearless, adventurous, hardworking and young (age 30 by 01/07) with flexible schedule to traverse Maryland.”

Ficker’s electoral taint applies not only to himself, but to others. The Post once reported that “he started a write-in campaign for Edward M. Kennedy in New Hampshire in 1972 only to learn his funding had come from the Nixon White House, which wanted to discredit Edmund Muskie, then considered a threat to Nixon.”

His One Term in the House of Delegates was an Epic Disaster

Early in his political career, Ficker actually got elected to the House of Delegates as a Republican from District 15. Annapolis quickly regretted it. His colleagues said, “they have never met anyone who lives for publicity the way Ficker does.” His “long, protracted questions, sometimes about the most minor issues” provoked “a considerable amount of exasperation at times.” The Post noted that his “gadfly politics and long speeches often emptied the House chamber in Annapolis.” Speaker Ben Cardin said this of Ficker: “I would be glad to make a contribution to Robin’s campaign… As long as he runs for the Senate or Congress or anything but the House of Delegates, I stand ready to help.” Possibly his only meaningful accomplishment was to help kill D.C. voting rights.

Ficker’s name on a bill was regarded as the kiss of death. Even his support could kill a bill. One lawmaker moaned, “The bill is dead…. I mean, if I had a bill I wanted killed the first thing I’d do is persuade Robin Ficker to speak for it.” On another occasion, a Delegate begged Ficker not to speak on behalf of his bill. Ficker did it anyway. The Delegate retaliated by breaking his microphone.

There were many stories about Ficker during his four years in the statehouse. Here is one from the Post.

Ficker shares a suite of offices with fellow Montgomery Republicans Constance A. Morella and [Luiz] Simmons. When the three moved in, Morella’s name, as the top vote-getter, was on top. Ficker switched the names. Somebody switched them back (Morella says she knows nothing about the incident.) Ficker switched them again. When they were switched one more time, Ficker had the final word–he bought a tube of Krazy Glue and glued his nameplate in on top.

Ficker was unperturbed by his notoriety. “At least I know I’m noticed. There are a lot of people in Annapolis who would like some recognition.”

Ficker was defeated in 1982 by Democrat Gene Counihan, much to the relief of Annapolis. To this day, Counihan proudly embraces the nickname he was given by his grateful colleagues:

The Ficker Kicker.

Ficker running for Montgomery County Council in 2009.

He is Frequently in Trouble

Ficker has been in trouble repeatedly ever since he was expelled from West Point in 1963, in part for “speaking abusively to hospital personnel while being treated for a broken leg.”

It’s hard to track all the Ficker Incidents. Most of them have to do with his misconduct as an attorney. Should we begin with 1988, when Maryland’s Attorney Grievance Commission accused Ficker of an ethics violation for advertising his expertise in palimony suits even though the state does not allow palimony? (He was later cleared, but a judge said the ads were in “bad taste.”) Or how about 1990, when the Court of Appeals reprimanded him for failing to show up at the trials of two clients? In 1995, the Attorney Grievance Commission slammed him when he “allegedly left clients stranded without representation in court and in one case sent a novice lawyer who was unfamiliar with the case into the courtroom.” There is also Ficker’s 1996 conviction of battery and malicious destruction of property in connection with a traffic accident involving a pregnant woman. The woman testified that Ficker “exploded in anger,” “was out of control,” and broke her sunglasses after he bumped her car and she tried to get contact information from him. After Ficker appealed, he was acquitted of destruction of property and the battery charge was dropped.

Ficker’s law license was suspended in 1998 and 2007 for violations of competence and diligence. Here’s what the Court of Appeals wrote after the second suspension.

As we observed initially, this is the fifth time that Ficker has run afoul of his obligation to manage his office in a proper manner. He was warned twice by this Court, in 1990 and in 1998, and, despite his claimed improvements, seems not to have learned enough from those warnings. As the result of his cavalier attention to proper office management (1) one client (Robertshaw), facing incarceration, was virtually abandoned until the eve of trial and then was represented by an associate who had not read the entire file, who was unaware that his client had two prior convictions, and who first presented the available options to her in the lobby of the courthouse on the day of trial, (2) another client (Paulk), facing criminal charges that could have resulted in incarceration, was abandoned on what she assumed would be a trial date and which, only by fortuitous circumstance unknown to her or Ficker, had been limited to an advice of rights proceeding, and (3) a third client (Ponto) ended up having an arrest warrant issued against him. We see in these violations an inexcusable lack of concern on Ficker’s part for the welfare of his clients, an unwillingness, after four warnings, to make the necessary improvements to his office management. Accordingly, we believe that the appropriate sanction is an indefinite suspension from the practice of law, with the right to reapply for admission no earlier than one year from the effective date of the suspension.

Would you want to be represented by this man?

A Ficker mailer from his recent campaign in Congressional District 6.

So given all of the above, why did Ficker’s anti-tax charter amendment pass in 2008, and why is his latest term limits amendment favored to pass? The answer is that MoCo’s elected leaders overreach, especially on the issue of raising taxes. By and large, the county’s electorate appreciates the role of government in solving problems and maintaining a high quality of life. But county leaders have approved six major tax increases in the last fifteen fiscal years and voters are getting tired of it. That’s why they voted to limit property tax hikes in 2008, and the County Council responded with a nine-percent increase this year. It’s almost impossible to give someone like Ficker the political high ground, but that’s what has happened. And it appears that elected officials will pay the price.

But as for Robin Ficker himself? The voters have made their decision on his many runs for office over the course of decades, and it’s not going to change now: